Impulse buying (IB) represents a pivotal subject in consumer psychology. A general agreement on its core elements and their relationship is arguably established. So far, however, there has been little discussion about how to assess impulse purchases, leading to a potential divergence of practise from theory and complexities in cross-study comparability. This systematic literature review investigates the research methods and metrics employed in high-quality literature to evaluate impulse shopping behaviours across different environments, including online, offline, and multichannel settings. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, the literature search has been conducted on databases relevant for scientific literature, including Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest. Fifty-four articles were included in this systematic review. Findings show the existence of four methods to investigate IB, namely quantitative self-reports, laboratory investigations, fieldwork observations, and qualitative interviews. A comparison of the four methods in terms of fit highlights that self-reports and interviews provide a significant contribution in assessing the cognitive facet of impulse purchasing. Laboratory investigations and fieldwork observation find a better fit with the conative and visceral facets of impulsive buying. Considering the major role of affective charges occurring during impulse shopping, complementary research approaches, and metrics belonging to applied psychophysiology and consumer neuroscience are examined. Three opportunities for future research are discussed, including theory building and refinement, understanding individual differences, and honing behavioural predictions.

Past, Present, and Future of Impulse Buying Research Methods: A Systematic Literature Review

Mandolfo M.;Lamberti L.
2021

Abstract

Impulse buying (IB) represents a pivotal subject in consumer psychology. A general agreement on its core elements and their relationship is arguably established. So far, however, there has been little discussion about how to assess impulse purchases, leading to a potential divergence of practise from theory and complexities in cross-study comparability. This systematic literature review investigates the research methods and metrics employed in high-quality literature to evaluate impulse shopping behaviours across different environments, including online, offline, and multichannel settings. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, the literature search has been conducted on databases relevant for scientific literature, including Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest. Fifty-four articles were included in this systematic review. Findings show the existence of four methods to investigate IB, namely quantitative self-reports, laboratory investigations, fieldwork observations, and qualitative interviews. A comparison of the four methods in terms of fit highlights that self-reports and interviews provide a significant contribution in assessing the cognitive facet of impulse purchasing. Laboratory investigations and fieldwork observation find a better fit with the conative and visceral facets of impulsive buying. Considering the major role of affective charges occurring during impulse shopping, complementary research approaches, and metrics belonging to applied psychophysiology and consumer neuroscience are examined. Three opportunities for future research are discussed, including theory building and refinement, understanding individual differences, and honing behavioural predictions.
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
consumer behaviour
consumer neuroscience
impulse buying
impulse purchase
neuromarketing
systematic review
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Mandolfo & Lamberti (2021).pdf

accesso aperto

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 625.36 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
625.36 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11311/1181488
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact